Friday, July 29, 2016

JUL 29, 2016 LENR - WHICH DOORS TO OPEN To WHAT? WHICH DOORS TO CLOSE- TO WHAT??

MOTTO
Image result for open and close quotationsImage result for open and close quotations

DAILY NOTES

 a) Open vs, closed LENR? Open to what? Closed to what?

 This morning I got an excellent  GREAT paper in The Economist: 
" The new political divide"
Farewell, left versus right. The contest that matters now is open against closed

The paper as such is connected to the US elections and strongly pro-openness despite the events caused by the massive and uncontrolled migration in Europe:
"The danger is that a rising sense of insecurity will lead to more electoral victories for closed-world types. This is the gravest risk to the free world since communism."
Almost true , I think an even greater danger is a badly built, non-functional Globalism, an explosive mixture of incompatible cultures with diametrically opposed ideologies re human rights, women's rights, democracy, freedom, value of human lives, power of the religious leaders, relationship with the Divinity. History will be written with red ink- blood.

Globalism is idealistic so was communism, an other global experience will show that Idealism has three antonyms: realism, materialism and pragmatism- Globalism is not a short term ideal needs some 1000 years not 20. Fragmentation is a Rule of human nature.

The real problem and option is not 
Open vs Closed but Open to what? Open to whom? and Closed to what? Closed to whom? 
Answers need wisdom and great care. Because "Mix and Kill!" is a potent mass manipulation method.

I wanted to comment these on the Economist but it is hopeless so many contrdictory  comments up already- who can read them and conclude something constructive?

The same problem exists in LENR. For example more PdD purists have closed the doors more or less, for Piantelli's NiH and more recently for Rossi's NiH. They see PdD as a cool hotbed of experimental certainties and as something genuinely Scientific while NiH is dreadfully uncertain and not scientific at ll.An extra reason to shutdown the E-Cat. Focardi and Rossi have promoted more theories while "we" here know well what happen, It is true- when 2 PdD experts meet  they believe in more than 3 theories in the same time.
W-L theory has met a closed door too... 

In LENR too, we have to open the doors with wisdom and care. What do you think.

b) On the front

IH considering counterclaims 

we will probably know what the want on Aug 5, other parties will be implicated probably as the ERV, the Customer, Rossi's accountant and photographers, the manufacturer of the flowmeter. We will see at Aug 5.

Obviously they are trying by any means to delay the payment.
This counter-complain seems to be effective in delaying the payment. How wonderfully honest and competent would have been this document say in June 2015 they had to make their complaints during the test, they had 1 year of time, but they used the 3 reports made by the ERV during the first 3 quarters of the test to collect money from their investors...etc Do IH care for such minute details?

c) MESSAGE FROM FRANCESCO CELANI
I am forwarding the text of the very recent interview to Nobelist Brian Josephson, Prof. Gianni Albertini and myself, about the LENR situation, in general, and the tentative effort to found a NEW institution devoted to studies energy related problems from a different approach.

* The interview was made by Dr .Claudio Pace during a, four days, Symposium organised by Prof. Gianni Albertini, (Ancona University -Italy), to honour Prof. J. Vigier.
Please, quote Claudio Pace as author of the interview.

* Please, be free to share the interview to anybody.

---Messaggio originale----
Da: "franzcelani@libero.it" <franzcelani@libero.it>
Data: 28/07/2016 16.06
A: <paceclaudio@gmail.com>
Ogg: Intervista al Nobel Brian Josephson, G. Albertini e F. Celani sulle LENR. [In fondo alla pagina del blog i link alla playlist delle breve intervista
(for speakers of Italian)

Cari Colleghi,


ho il piacere, ed onore, di inviarVi il link ad una breve intervista, realizzata dal Dott. Claudio Pace, a:


A) Prof. Brian Josephson, Premio Nobel per la Fisica;


B) Prof. Gianni Albertini, docente di Fisica Generale presso l'Università di Ancona;


C) lo scrivente (Francesco Celani)


in occasione di un recentissimo Convegno (tuttora in corso ad Ancona) dedicato agli studi "non convenzionali" effettuati dal Prof. J. Vigier nell'ambito della Fisica-Matematica. Fra l'altro, Vigier è stato attivo sostenitore delle LENR.


*I link sono riportati in calce:
http://www.claudiopace.it/simposio-vieger-passione-scienza/

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLK40E5JdJBZSVVctRYmS28nmF17hLXM7G
Tomorrow I will offer you  ashort text of Francesco appended to this document, mainly about the ncessiy of funding a new LENR dedicated Institution. European LENR?
DAILY NEWS

 1) Industrial Heat Asks for Extra Time to File Counterclaims against Rossi (perhaps others)

3) LENR news portal

4) From Rossi's JONP

Joy Reynolds
July 28, 2016 at 10:51 AM
Dr Andrea Rossi:
We understand from your last comments how hard and consuming has been your work inside the 1 MW plant.
God bless you for your sacrifice for this cause.
JR
Andrea Rossi
July 28, 2016 at 8:30 PM
Joy Reynolds:
It is the central achievement of my life.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

 6) On The New Vortex of Abd  Ul Rahman Lomax there is an answer of the owner to this comment of Kirk Shanahan
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3434-Document-Isotopic-Composition-of-Rossi-Fuel-Sample-Unverified/?postID=29150#post29150

Posted by at

4 comments:

  1. dsjm1July 29, 2016 at 3:32 PM

    Some comments In regard to the Rossi vs IH lawsuits.

    1st the whole business is a sorry tale and one can only wonder (as so many of us have done openly) how it was allowed to happen at all. Why did IH not deal with this much earlier (assuming they had formed the opinion that Rossi's eCats did not work either before the start of the 1 year test or during it).

    There is a gaping hole in IH's lack of early action on their 'concerns'.

    The situation they appear to be in (as best I can read it) is that unless they can 'prove' to the court, that either Rossi and or Penon, can be shown to have doctored or falsified any aspect of the test, then IH are in trouble.

    The difficulty IH have from what I see, is that they didn't raise any such objection nor challenge during the period of the test (that we know of).

    The lawsuit it self centers on IH paying Andrea Rossi for a successful test. If as Rossi claims, both Rossi and IH approved of Penon as the ERV, and the test was run for the period required, then IH by refusing to pay, appear to be the ones in breech of the agreement.

    If as they now claim, the Rossi eCats "do not work" (whatever that means) they have to be able to demonstrate fraud or deception. That may be very difficult allowing for the way the test was completed and the agreements were written.

    I find it hard not to see IH as in difficulty irrespective of any opinion as to the capability of eCats.

    At best, one of IH's defense tactics could be to argue that the eCat is LENR and LENR is scientifically unproven irrespective of the ERV report. I can't really see any other way out for them.

    Doug Marker

    ReplyDelete
  2. sam northJuly 29, 2016 at 5:54 PM

    Doug
    This is David French take on it.
    http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue129/Industrial-Heat-Motion-to-Dismiss-Rossi-Complaint.html
    Sam

    ReplyDelete
  3. UnknownJuly 31, 2016 at 9:59 AM

    i THINK THAT YOU ARE RIGHT DJSM1.
    There is no reason IH should not kill this debate long time ago. I have heard no negotiations no middleman that is unusual when it comes to an investment company, which wants to withdraw.
    Their claim it does not work has really very little to do with the issue in the lawsuit.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)